It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC Challenge

page: 54
<< 51  52  53    55 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 07:31 AM

Originally posted by twitchy
Roark considering the size and proportions of the WTC tower complex, yes, a footprint collapse. Nice try though, some pictures of leaning post-collapse rubble really shows the trivality of arguing with you on the WTC Demolition. Damn the explosions, full speed ahead.

One the first things i thought after watching those buildings go down live and all the footage of the wreckage after the dust cleared was that it would of been pure chaos if they toppled over, this was not a big mess for that size of destruction which surely has saved a lot of lives. Watching the repeats that week i figured they must have had charges in place in case of a toppling threat or even a hurricane threat, that's why they brought them down on 9/11. I actually gave them credit for having the pre-thought to have a pulling system in case of disaster. I remember the footage of people walking around warning that the building is about to come down, i've seen it on the net since, someone gave that warning. Seems odd they'd do it when the firemen inside the building are asking for just 2 more hoses because they almost have the fire under control.

Looking into the grander conspiracy and goal of bringing those towers down, i think it was much more calculated than purely saving a massive mess across NY, thou that was always going to be a bonus of rigging the building for a controlled demolition prior to these attacks. Just a shame they pulled them in the wrong order, kinda gave it away a bit.

Remember, a scar is an important reference for propaganda and changing one of the most recognised skylines is a pretty good scar, especially if you can make a buck off it too!

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:24 AM
Just to reply to the last post.....

Never in my life have I heard of placing TNT in a building to take a building down, just in case....that's just crazy talk, they don't plan/build skycrapers like this.

Unless you got some "proof" to show they practice this.

Plus how would the "connections" be done???? If this was the case and they did have TNT (pre-planned) in the structure.....the planes crashing into the structure would "server" the lines connecting the TNT ....ever watch show's on TV that show "demolition" many times' they press the "button" and nothing happens.

Y'r Canadian friend,

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 10:56 AM
They sure do, it's part of 'City Planning' in major metropolitan areas, large Sky Scrapers are built with easy access 'panels' to structural core columns and the like just for the placement of demolition charges in the event the building ever needs to be demolished.

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 11:56 AM
Those reports are great.. Finally some answers..
People, dont be lazy.. you want answers then read the bloody reports.

This answers only a few questions although.. Im convinced explosives were NOT used. But there are still questions unanswered regarding other events around 9/11 and other circumstances in regards to the twin towers

Things Answered:
No explosives used
Planes caused structural damage causing the collapses
'Quick fall' rate explained
Fire is only 1 of the many circumstances that caused collapse
Full understanding of building layout - helps explain alot

Things that need answers:
Flight 93
Where is the plane? Where are the bodies? anything? no
Pentagon crash
FBI wont release video evidence confiscated from washington
Debris on-site doesnt fit the claims
Eye-witness doesnt fit the claims
Damage doesnt fit the claims

Now lets close the gap on a few more questions and we might be getting somewhere

Thanks to the author of this thread btw

[edit on 6-5-2006 by fennek77]

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 01:26 PM
Can you post what parts of the NIST report prove there weren't explosives? Or even what parts show how the global collapses would've been possible without them?

posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:04 AM

No explosives used
Planes caused structural damage causing the collapses
'Quick fall' rate explained

None of those have been explained. The Towers themselves turned into dust within 10 to 12 seconds. Yes there was still dust in the air after that, but that was it. The core of the buildings themselves went down in 10 to 12 seconds.
No one has yet to explain how a building can pan cake that fast. I mean we are talking nearly 10 floors per second!

You can say all you want that the planes had a significant part in the collapse of the building, BUT if you had actually read through FEMA and NIST reports you would know they place the blame mainly on OFFICE FIRES.

posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:20 PM
With regards to suppling "empty panels" in high rises for poss. TNT NOT TRUE
(Show one example of this.....proof????) never in my 20yr's seen this...and yes have done many of them. Plus how would you put the TNT in "all" the panels that fast....that would be required for a "Proper demolition"...not to even mention the "line" would be cut from the plane impact.
There is NO requirment for this "future" tnt panels for PERMIT at the City....if you show me a by-law to this effect and/or building code???

with regards to the building falling so's called GRAVITY....and speed's up as it falls.

I have poked around and "asked" some structural engineers with prob. 2x my experience ..........and "THEY"' was the planes and fire that made the building fall........and unless ANYONE has "proof" that TNT was used ??????

Y'r Canadian friend,

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:37 PM
Debunking NIST is so easy, even a caveman can do it. NIST debunked themselves.....

Page 2

Disclaimer No. 4

NIST takes no position as to whether the design or construction of a WTC building was compliant with any code
since, due to the destruction of the WTC buildings, NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction, the
properties and condition of the materials used, or changes to the original construction made over the life of the

Page 19

However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed,
and the remains of the towers were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for
this Investigation to begin.

Basically, everything they have to say is speculation, because they have no physical proof of the actual state of the building before 9/11, nor AFTER 9/11.

They tell you this themselves. Then they have the nerve to claim this:

Page 21

The insulation was
knocked off nearly all the core columns and over a 40 ft width of floor trusses from the south end of the
core to the south face of the tower.

How in the world could anyone know this information?? NIST, in several of their reports claim that because of the collapse of the buildings, they have no clue what the actual damage to the building was. Then they proceed to brainwash the readers with unverifiable speculation.

Once again, here is something else they state as "FACT" but they can not prove in their lifetime:

Page 24

Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable
amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building.

They have absolutely no possible way to verify this..


As heavy as a comment that is, it is the absolutely true. The continuously push things as fact, when they themselves state they can not prove it!!!!!!!

I can go on for hours debunking this CRAP!

[edit on 16-9-2007 by elbappotsnu]

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 02:06 PM
I just submitted comments to the e-mail address on two topics: how they obtained the specific amount of jet fuel burned to deteriorate the strength of the columns, and also the hermetically sealed stairwells, elevator shafts, and utility shafts. The sealings on these spots were to prevent oxygen from leaking into the stairwells and elevator in the case of fire. Obviously, whenever a door was opened, oxygen from the adjacent room would fill it up, allowing breathing (just in case anyone tried to say "how do you breathe?!"). The sealed openings were to prevent specific fire-attributed substances out, preventing further spread. The sealed crevices apparently prevented smoke, oxygen (as already mentioned), fire, liquids, and other hazardous or flammable gases.

My point is, the smoke coming from the buildings was black, meaning the fires were dying, they had no oxygen to feed from, the jet fuel was burned off, etc. These sealings obviously worked. Had they not functioned, NIST could probably pass the fire spreading story off easily. Of course, I also took into account the planes hit at multiple floors. Unfortunately, NIST makes it seem as though steel doesn't conduct heat away from the source. The steel was heated on initial impact, the fires burned, and then they died. Period.

The fires that heated the steel were weakened as they passed wherever, for example, the 81st floor was one floor that was impacted on the North Tower, thus, the fires would be the hottest there and possibly up two floors and down three floors. So the 81st floor is where it would be the hottest, and also down to floor 78 (maybe). The fires descending down to the rest of the floors wouldn't be as hot, and over a small amount of time, the other steel would conduct the heat away from the main source, which ultimately means, the fires may not have "raged" for two hours. They would have decreased in temperature (back to the oxygen-starved smoke).

NIST likes to leave out the distant conduction of heat through steel. I didn't see anything about it. I admit I didn't read all of the report posted on the first page, but what I sorted through mentioned nothing about precautionary sealants on shafts and stairs, nor any mention of heat conduction abound. Even coupled with office supplies (how does that make a kerosene fire "rage" all the more? Even a bunch of paper or a mountain of furniture? It's kerosene. Besides, if the fire was dying, wouldn't the fires die on furniture and paper fires too?), I don't believe the fires were even strong enough to bring down the trusses, perimeter columns, or whole floors.

So in case I wait in vain for a NIST e-mail, anyone want to tell me how fires brought down the World Trade Centers? Or does anyone want to explain how the combination of impact damage, fire, and pancaking did the Towers in? I hope NIST doesn't try to bog me down in useless details and colorful language, as I've experienced with some Conspiracy-Bashing site moderators.

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by Jedi_Master

One of the first things shut off after the impact of the North Tower.
What do you think NYC Firemen do in when responding to anyplace that uses natural gas?

Lets go fight a fire in a building with active gaslines !

You give the Heroes no credit.

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:16 AM
an excellent explanation as to why the NIST report is totally wrong;

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:19 AM
and another;

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:03 PM
there is not a single piece of evidence or even a substantiated theory which provides proof of demolitions. don't you know, the truthers only ask questions, they can't answer them with any competency.

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:50 AM

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
there is not a single piece of evidence or even a substantiated theory which provides proof of demolitions.

How does a theory provide proof? And the proof is in the physics. I.E. we don't need a smoking gun explosive casing to know that physics was suspended by "something" that day.

don't you know, the truthers only ask questions, they can't answer them with any competency.

At least we ask the questions. As oppossed to ignoring details which go against our pre-determined theory.

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by fastfingersfunk

Well, I dare to differ.

So speaking of laying the evidence on the table, what would be a good example of a difference between NIST and others?

and this :
and this :
and this :
and this :

and this is the thread title and link to its page 1 :
I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)

See all my posts on page 8 of that thread for the basic arguments :

and this other thread has additional posts on the subject, especially this one where you can see the real comparison at the same scale, at last, between LDEO's seismic graphs :

this is that thread's title and link to its page 1 :
Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

I compared SOLELY the facts provided by two government institutions publications, LDEO and NIST, and proved human intervention in the three WTC collapses.

This is my original thesis :

I repeat, and will keep doing it, until someone will be able to prove me wrong, or until this subject will get the attention it deserves in main stream media in the US or outside :

Prove me wrong on my WTC 7 thesis, and you then subsequently prove me wrong on my inevitable WTC 1 and 2 conclusion.
That conclusion being, that all three LDEO collapse seismograms show human intervention, in other words, explosions.

That's my evidence, very much on topic, and you will all have a hard time to prove me wrong.
(I predict, you can't.)

Both NIST and LDEO based their time frames on GPS based techniques.
The Gianca WTC 7 Penthouse roof-dent photograph's time stamp, published by NIST, and the LDEO seismograph's timestamps, were all calculated from the SAME well-known GPS based atomic clock readings from NIST.
The same NIST atomic clock readings you can use through NIST's internet-time server at to precisely set your computer's clock :

NOTE 2 (thanks to the previous poster who found these 2 papers) :
And the above linked PDF thesis is the proof that even in case of a steel elasticity of 0 or 1 (0 or 100 %), Charles M. Beck proves that in BOTH cases the NIST conclusion that both WTC towers were doomed is blatantly wrong.

In other words, a total collapse of the buildings required additional destructive mechanisms besides that of the top floors avalanching on the remaining intact structures.

Read also :
A compilation of physical impossibilities & overlooked evidence in the official explanations for the destruction of the World Trade Center Complex,
by C. Thurston.

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:47 PM

Originally posted by svenglezz

Plus how would the "connections" be done???? If this was the case and they did have TNT (pre-planned) in the structure.....the planes crashing into the structure would "server" the lines connecting the TNT ....ever watch show's on TV that show "demolition" many times' they press the "button" and nothing happens.

Y'r Canadian friend,

Uh, Remote detonation. Ever been through a blasting zone and they have that sign "PLEASE TURN OF ALL CELLPHONES AND 2 WAY RADIOS".
I'm not sure if you knew this, but not only can you blow things up wirelessly, you can access the internet without wires too!

Please don't base an arugement off TV, it's just silly to do that.

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:50 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

I think you're right, they can't prove you wrong. Debunkers should have been here by now.

I would like to commend you on that thesis, very well done with actual facts and evidence to back up your conclusion. It's funny how the independently gathered evidence doesn't support the official story(unless the change the timeline and scaling of the graphs).

posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 11:37 AM
LaBTop, do you know if the shaking in this camera that was on top of a nearby building before the collapse in this video coincides with the seismic activity picked up?

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by PplVSNWO

It looks close to me, I'm not an expert, but I used a stopwatch and timed from the camera shake until I could see the tower start to move. I got 12.53 seconds(avg of 3 attempts). I'm not an expert, but it looks very close to the start of the seismic activity until the collapse begins on your graphs.
Any thoughts?

posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by PplVSNWO

The video of the shaking camera tripod on a building balcony near the North tower is showing the shaking at around those 12.5 to 13 seconds you clocked, before the second global collapse of 9/11 started, the North tower collapse.

When you look at this graph of the second collapse, the North tower one, you can clearly see that those 12.5 to 13 seconds untill global collapse coincide perfectly with the first bigger than background noise, seismic readings.
This graph has been re-calculated to the same 10 nm/second sensibility as the seismic graphs from the 2 plane impacts and the WTC 7 collapse :

Collapse 2

My thought however : why don't we see that tripod trembling all the time until collapse, since we clearly see a constant input of seismic signals in my graph, until the huge signals start to arrive.
So I tend to see that tripod shake as a coincident, not clearly possible to explain. Could be wind, a kick by the operator or bystander, a bird landing, whatever. Anything goes, but not exclusively a seismic tremor.

Another thought, however.
In the past there has been posted another video at this forum, the one taken near the base from the South tower collapse initiation, in which we see a white cloud slowly emanating from the louvers, covering the walls of the basement mechanical floors, seconds before collapse.
That time frame from the first white smoke emission to global collapse initiation also coincided with the exact same amount of 10 seconds elapsing in my First collapse seismic graph, from the appearing of the first bigger than background noise signals, towards the moment when the South tower global collapse was initiating, and was simultaneously seen and heard starting, by the filming camera man.

Collapse 1

These two WTC Tower collapse graphs can be found in this post in my thesis thread at :

With a bit of perseverance, it will be possible to find more video evidence of unexplained energy traces laying around, ready to be compared with any of the time frames in my seismic collapse charts.

I applaud you for being one of the few who at least is trying to find corroborating facts for my seismic proof of unexplained energy bursts, appearing many seconds before all three global collapses started.

It is very sad, that so few pay attention to this damning evidence of human intervention in the three WTC tower collapses on 11 September 2001.

This is real, hard proof, but most of the readers here keep massively starring and flagging totally outlandish or unprovable theories, probably because they love the mystery parts and are not ready to stand on any sort of barricades, yet.

It sadly enough, indicates the huge success for the 60 year long Pentagon propaganda campaign, to numb the US populace down to the level of thrill seekers and short-span attention, fabricated-news junkies.

My hopes and bets however are on the many honestly truth seeking individuals, reading, and partly also posting at these forums, and other ones like these around the Internet.

Good luck, America.

[edit on 1/5/08 by LaBTop]

new topics

top topics

<< 51  52  53    55 >>

log in